BEYOND THE POSTMODERN:
Any Futures Left for Muslims and Others
By Sohail
Inayatullah
(The Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
1998, “Beyond the Postmodern: Any Futures Possible?” Periodica Islamica (Vol. 5,
No. 1, 1995), 2-3.)
While
scholars, critical theorists, scientists debate the Islamization of
knowledge/science project, this debate has all but been made trivial by new
technologies and techniques creating a postmodern world where the future has
arrived, making history and the idea of the future, as the space of another
possibility, another culture, all but obsolete. The larger context of this
debate is now postmodernity, the derealization of the modern world for some, the
final exaggeration for others, the last breath before a new global, ethical,
integrated world comes to be for the idealistic few.
Postmodernity is primarily characterised as standing in opposition
to the traditional and moral worldview. Reality once considered stable is now
virtual; truth once considered eternal and universal is now fleeting and local;
the natural once defined by evolution and nature is now socially and
technologically constructed; sovereignty once contoured by civilization and
culture is now porous with global capitalism ubiquitous. Finally, the self,
once certain of its mission in life, is now merely a collage of impressions,
created and recreated by the desire for hypertime and hyperspace.
This world comes to us in many forms and figures. Perhaps most
prominent are the new global archetypes. They are Michael Jackson, the totally
artificial person, created, designed by surgeons who well understood the call in
the Movie, The Graduate, that plastics is the future. They are Michael
Jordan, the basketball player, whose coming out of retirement sent the world
markets millions of dollars higher. Jordan can jump and never land, defying the
moral utterance of "when one rises too far, one falls." They are Mickey and
Minnie Mouse, Disneyland, the friendly fascism of the future, where all sites
and smells, entrances and exits are contrived, where one can but smile for one
is in a different land, where nothing matters. "It is a small world after all,"
one leaves singing, as the billboard of American Express passes the gaze of
one's illuminated eyes.
But this is not the illumination the Prophet spoke of. We are not
seeing the veils of ignorance torn aside and a new world given to us. This is
not even the existentialist veil, as presented in Sartre's Nausea where
man realises that his life is utterly meaningless. Rather our eyes themselves
are torn apart and our selves manufactured otherwise.
However, even as postmodernity continues the values of
modernity--the empirical, the West, militarism--it contests them creating new
forms of self and culture that are far more liminal, far more interactive and
potentially participatory, two way, if not multiway, methods of dialogue. As
Asian VTV Bangra rap enters our television screens, attempts to recreate a fixed
traditional culture become impossible. But it is not cultural melange nor a
"multi-identitied" self that we should fear, indeed, this promises a renaissance
in the third world, possibly through the appropriation of the West within the
categories of Asian culture; rather, it is the grander assault on the
possibility of an alternative future different than the linearity of Western
materialism that is our problematic.
While religious authorities and
humanists have decried that science runs at a faster rate than culture, science
now is not only making culture obsolete but redesigning evolution itself.
Imagine a hand, wearing a glove, writing with a pen. The hand represents
evolution, our body; the glove culture, our elegance, our protection; and the
pen, technology. The pen has now turned back on the hand and redesigned it,[i]
making culture obsolete, merely technique.
There is thus much to be feared.
While the Islamic world debates,
developments in genetic engineering soon promise to transform the private space
of our individual genes to public space, where they can be bought and sold:[ii]
not only will plants and other resources be patented by the technologically
advanced so will our very selves.
In recent news, California
doctors have successfully corrected genetically inherited defects at birth,
setting the stage for genetic control of the 3000 congenital disorders found in
children worldwide. Doctors have also perfected a growth hormone which can
now add five to seven centimetres to the final adult height of short children.
The worldwide market for this drug is expected to be in the billions.[iii]
Simultaneously a recent critique of Western developmentalism argues that it is
not just that the West uses all the world's resources because of their
consumerist lifestyle, but because they are taller.[iv]
Shortness is better since shorter people consume less and use less space. Should
we then engineer shorter people? But this latter argument will unlikely win out
as parents, in their obvious self-interest, flock to genetic disease prevention
and genetic enhancement of who we can be.
While the first step will be genetic prevention, it will be a quick and slippery
slope to genetic advancement. The State will certainly monitor our genetic
blueprints, controlling where and when we can travel. However, genetic
prevention will reduce diseases, but under the mantle of an objective,
universal, theory of everything science, a mantle which claims perfect
knowledge. Perfection will be defined by conventional materialistic,
fetish (Milan, Paris and Harvard) definitions. We will terminate life based on
the possibility of future diseases with the State eventually stepping in to
ensure equally access to genetic intervention. Why should it stop there?
It won't! Birthing will be done in hospitals. But rest assured, we
can watch the baby grow in one's very own family birth cubicle, a womb of sorts.
Instead of a thin layer of skin separating the foetus from "parents" it will be
even a thinner more sensitive layer of organic plastic.
Developments in genetics when linked with virtual reality and
artificial intelligence will make it to enter hospital turned design factories
and visualise our baby's future extrapolated through holography. We will be able
to watch him, her, or it go through various life stages seeing crucial lifepoints where certain diseases might develop. But it will be a particular
model of the life-cycle that will be given to us.
For Muslims, the postmodern world will not be familiar, making the
estrangement of the modern world minor by comparison. For Statist Islam, there
will be no easy West to use as a ruse against its own population as in
modernity, postmodernity will not exist in such easy dualities. While power
might be in the hands of a world government, most likely it will be more
difficult to encircle, with large information-genetic corporations giving out
passports for travel in their owned worlds.
As Muslims, and as individuals of different faiths, committed to the
possibility of a global ethics, there is little to rejoice, except that these
transformations might in themselves lead to new technologies that destroy
modernity. However, most likely we will live in perpetual modernity--postmodernity
always becoming modern--the idea of alternative futures (the future as a real
space, a call for transformation) merely becoming part of an atemporal world,
where all is allowed and thus nothing is possible. Certainly not a global
ethics based on values other than profit or the short term needs of the few.
However, we should not be seduced by humanism either and outright
reject new technologies, otherwise we will be further silenced. Humanists look
at this artificial world in creation and recoil in horror. They long for a
simpler, gentler world, when cricket lasted five days, when gentlemen were
gentlemen, when time was slow---and--when the Other provided material comforts.
But the classical world many humanists long for existed because it could exploit
the colonies, take away labor and ideas, and impose slavery and civilization. It
was violently hierarchical. Colonisation, of course, has moved away from such
amateurish efforts. More sophisticated is the appropriation of cultural
diversity, the appropriation of difference for the continuation of liberal
capitalism.
In the movie Alladin, we learn how the servant of God is
appropriated by Californian culture. By the last scene, he asks to be called
just "Al." This is the trivialisation of the Other, at one level, and at a
deeper level, the secularisation of the holistic Islamic worldview, its
appropriation, not for the synthetic and creative task of envisioning a new
planetary culture, but the use of history for the rationality of Hollywood.
But if we dispense from the humanist reaction to postmodernity,
where then is the reality check, the reality principle? As trillions of dollars
search the planet every second for a home to maximise their own profit, to
fulfil their ontological needs for interest, work becomes increasingly passe'.
Virtual reality, genetics, telecommunications, and the world's financial
speculative markets have all created a world in which the real is no longer
real. In fact, it may be that Disneyland exists as fantasy to shore up the
actual unreality--that of the neorealist model of national identity, as
Baudrillard and others argue. Disneyland is constructed as fantasy so we evade
the conclusion that current models of governance, of nationalism, of wealth
generation are in fact grand fantasies, existing only as real because we have
official fantasies in which they can exist in contrast to.
Sovereignty too becomes passe'. Nations can no longer control
pollution, national culture, capital, or the import/export of nuclear weapons.
For nations which have had the chance to develop and prosper, the new globalism
promises further cultural expansion; but for third world nations, who search
for a sovereignty impossible in an unequal global division of labor, the
porousness of the nation-state is a further tragedy, especially as old dynastic
dispute prevent the creation of an Islamic community, the creation of a moral,
even virtual, community. Instead, instrumental rationality prods us all into
directions we choose not to go.
The message of the Quran while signalling the need for another
space, where critical consciousness and submission to the Divine gives
direction, but in a world where direction has been made meaningless, where we
live in heterotopias--many contradictory spaces at the same time--direction is
both evasive and a matter of life and death. The loss of space as a refuge, as
direction, destroys culture--sacredness is lost. For the modern, all space must
be commodified and for the postmodern all space must be relativised, as one
discourse among many.
But we can gain some strength in remembering that postmodernity in
itself is merely the logic of late capitalism, a stage of chaos, merely an end
game. As Ibn Khaldun reminded us many years ago:
At the end
of a dynasty, there often also appears some (show of) power that gives the
impression that the senility of the dynasty has been made to disappear. It
lights up brilliantly just before it is extinguished, like a burning wick the
flame of which leaps up brilliantly a moment before it goes out, giving the
impression it is just starting to burn, when in fact it is going out.[v]
It might be then that the postmodern even as it extends the modern
signals its end. As reality becomes uncomfortably decentred, an ethical
worldview can provide a centre, a point of reflection, in which decisions can be
made outside of instrumental rationality. This becomes the reality principle.
We thus should not powerlessly accept the instrumental rational of the science
and technology revolution, believing that it is just one more in the latest
revolution that will change who we are, since, after all, that is what history
is about. Evolution is changing us, let us go for the ride, it can be to
easily argued.
We can in defence of our identity investigate the cultural basis of that
revolution, asking what are the values that inform it, that drive it, that
govern its knowledge base? We can ask who participates, who does not?
Based on these questions we can begin to create an alternative voice in science
that looks at how knowledge subjugates, that understands how the categories we
use to see the world are borrowed, are not authentic to our histories.
But this then should not be an excuse to not deconstruct our own history,
it is not an excuse for imperial power within our own culture, but an opening up
of Islam and culture. We thus need to deconstruct our own history, to see
what has been romanticised, what used for dynastic or personal glorification.
This will allow for the creation of futures more familiar to the needs of
Muslims. An authentic culture must be open to transformation even as it commits
to basic principles of what it is.
Thus as we recognise that the future is being created by Centre,
Western culture at the expense of the Other, we argue for a guided evolution
that brings in the values of other cultures in dialogue with technology, biology
and civilisations. This vision reimagines the future based on the possibility of
eradicating powerlessness, on the need for a larger unifying global
project--that is, a science based on our physical, mental and spiritual
potentials--of which science and technology can play a role in.
This is, however, not an argument for a new "story of stories" an ahistorical blend of various grand narratives. We must remember that stories
come into being because they represent long battles, deep histories, heroic
sacrifices, and primal myths. A story of stories, while potentially rewarding,
if created in condition of an authentic meetings of cultures, is likely in the
contemporary framework to merely be a victory for liberalism, for reductionist
science. While the story tellers weave, the geneticists and cybernauts will
have already created the New Story.
Will Muslims, indigenous peoples, and others committed to an
alternative spiritual (integrated) ethical worldview be part of this story,
perhaps, but most likely, as caricature, like Alladin, ready to become just Al.
I hope however for a
different story, what I have elsewhere called a post-Asian dream.[vi]
It is a vision of unity and of global dialogue, of multi-epistemological
world--of angels, virtual worlds but still grounded in the fundamentals:
dignity, basic needs, and the direction which a spiritual oriented worldview
gives. It does not reject genetics and virtual worlds in total but does call
for the application of the reality principle, of human suffering and human
transcendence. In my vision it is Alladin--the servant of Allah--who will frame
the possibility and choice of Al, and not, not, the other way around. For when
all is said and done, it is the Divine that is our strength, that can guide
technique, nourish the heart and create a more just society.
[i].
I am indebted to Susantha Goonatilake for this metaphor.
[ii].
I am indebted to Astrid Gesche for this observation.
[iii].
Mike O'Connor, "Gene therapy beats defects," The Sunday Mail (14 May
1995), 52.
[iv].
Thomas Samaras, "Short is Beautiful," The Futurist (January-February,
1995), 26-30.
[v].
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated
by Franz Rosenthal. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1967, 246.
[vi].
Sohail Inayatullah, "Integration and Disintegration: the futures of asian
culture," coordinated by Eleonora Masini, The Futures of Cultures.
Paris, Unesco Publications, 1995.